Subject: 
            Re: [evol-psych] Huxleyan dualism of Dawkins and EP
       Date: 
            Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:10:34 +0000
      From: 
            Keith Sutherland 
        To: 
            David Wolpert 
        CC: 
            Larry Arnhart , [email protected]
 References: 
            1 , 2




In message , David 
Wolpert  writes
>Please, let us not fall for the naturalist fallacy! We must distinguish
>between normative morality - how, based on logic and reasoning, we
>determine that we *should* behave - from empirical morality - how, based
>on natural selection, we *do* behave. The latter is the province of EP,
>the former of ethics and philosophy.

Whilst one would not wish to deny that philosophy and ethics is the 
appropriate scholarly domain for logic and reasoning, nevertheless 
"normative morality" is also a practical activity -- how societies 
organise their conduct -- and is closely linked with the survival of 
societies, and even the species. So philosophers and ethicists will have 
to admit that they don't have a monopoly interest in this field.

Given that the natural homeostatic temperature of blood temperature in 
mammals is 98.5%F, we can deduce that mammals therefore "ought" to 
reside within a range of ambient temperatures derived from this 
biological fact. Given that EP would indicate that there is such a thing 
as "human nature" and this is rooted in biology, then as normative 
morality is one of the principal modulators of human nature, how then is 
the social organisation of humankind different in principle from the 
first, equally biological, fact?

Although ethicists sometimes have the conceit to imagine that ethical 
and legal codes are rationally deduced, in practice -- at least within 
the tradition of English common law -- judges have taken a resolutely 
empirical approach. The very principle of "justice" is an abstraction 
from the very human emotion of revenge, not some arcane Rawlsian 
calculus. Thus law is derived from human biology, not the transcendent 
realm of dispassionate reasoning.

One of these days philosophers are going to have to admit that the 
naturalistic fallacy is just a hangover from the days when it was 
unfashionable to believe in human nature. This will be difficult for 
them to accept as they might well find themselves out of a job.
-- 
Keith Sutherland